Recovery of grip strength and hand dexterity after distal radius fracture: A two-year prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Clinicians often evaluate deficits after an injury by comparing the injured and uninjured side. It is important to understand what deficits occur in hand function after distal radius fracture, how they change over time and their clinical relevance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in grip strength and hand dexterity between the injured and uninjured hands of patients two years following distal radius fracture. Methods Patients with distal radius fracture were recruited in a specialized hand clinic. Grip strength and hand dexterity were examined bilaterally with a Jamar hand-held dynamometer and with the NK dexterity device at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months’ post-injury respectively. Generalized linear modeling was performed, with age and sex as covariates to assess changes over time, and between sides. Results Patients (n = 154) exhibited mean differences of grip strength between injured and uninjured side at 3 months’ (12.09 kg) and 6 months’ (7.47 kg) follow-up. The associated deficit standardized response means (SRM) were 1.30 and 0.73, respectively. At 2-years follow-up the mean deficit on the injured side was 2.30 kg with SRM = 0.22. One hundred and eleven patients who completed dexterity testing demonstrated small to trivial side to side differences across all time points. Conclusions There were clinically important differences in grip strength between the injured and uninjured hands in patients with a distal radius fracture at 3 and 6 months’ follow-up. However, at 12 and 24 months, grip strength differences were small and of uncertain clinical importance. Trivial to small differences in hand dexterity can be expected between the injured and uninjured hand by 2 years after distal radius fracture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".